https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2486113
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review+ Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #15 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <[email protected]> --- Looks okay to me, just two minor quips: 1. Calls to desktop-file-validate and appstream-util should, arguably, be moved from %install to %check. 2. There is some documentation in the docs/ directory. Maybe it'd be worth it to build it? HTML would probably be preferable over PDF. None of these two are blockers, so - APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 134619 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Note: link to successful koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148193468 [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xwpe-1.6.9-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm xwpe-1.6.9-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp41vrjyes')] checks: 32, packages: 2 xwpe.src: E: spelling-error ('Borland', 'Summary(en_US) Borland -> Borderland, Orlando') xwpe.src: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') xwpe.src: E: spelling-error ('xwe', '%description -l en_US xwe -> we, ewe, awe') xwpe.src: E: spelling-error ('gdb', '%description -l en_US gdb -> db, gab, gob') xwpe.src: E: spelling-error ('jdb', '%description -l en_US jdb -> db, jib, jab') xwpe.src: E: spelling-error ('pdb', '%description -l en_US pdb -> pd, db, pub') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Borland', 'Summary(en_US) Borland -> Borderland, Orlando') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gdb', '%description -l en_US gdb -> db, gab, gob') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('jdb', '%description -l en_US jdb -> db, jib, jab') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdb', '%description -l en_US pdb -> pd, db, pub') xwpe.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xwpe/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 12 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: xwpe-debuginfo-1.6.9-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpz96h6muz')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('Borland', 'Summary(en_US) Borland -> Borderland, Orlando') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ncurses', '%description -l en_US ncurses -> nurses, curses, n curses') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('gdb', '%description -l en_US gdb -> db, gab, gob') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('jdb', '%description -l en_US jdb -> db, jib, jab') xwpe.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('pdb', '%description -l en_US pdb -> pd, db, pub') xwpe.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/xwpe/COPYING 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 0 warnings, 11 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.5 s Source checksums ---------------- https://codeberg.org/mendezr/xwpe/releases/download/v1.6.9/xwpe-1.6.9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 14499a7a4f5193bf23f539285adf7156054c5bfe6b20b991e705e3c3a5f6b392 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14499a7a4f5193bf23f539285adf7156054c5bfe6b20b991e705e3c3a5f6b392 Requires -------- xwpe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hicolor-icon-theme libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXft.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcairo.so.2()(64bit) libfontconfig.so.1()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgpm.so.2()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5()(64bit) libjson-c.so.5(JSONC_0.14)(64bit) libncursesw.so.6()(64bit) libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libpangocairo-1.0.so.0()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) libvterm.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-client.so.0()(64bit) libwayland-cursor.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0()(64bit) libxkbcommon.so.0(V_0.5.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- xwpe: application() application(xwpe.desktop) metainfo() metainfo(io.codeberg.mendezr.xwpe.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(text/plain) mimehandler(text/x-c++src) mimehandler(text/x-chdr) mimehandler(text/x-csrc) mimehandler(text/x-pascal) xwpe xwpe(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2486113 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, R, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, Perl, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2486113 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202486113%23c15 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
